Questions related to Epistemology
Hello, I would like to know what is the difference between epistemological positioning and paradigm. These two terms are used without apparent distinction in methodological articles by certain authors. Others indicate that paradigm is a sub-branch of epistemological positioning which also includes methodology and ontology.
Thank you in advance for your clarification!
When I search for articles and understandings around decolonizing education, I find a lot of resources related to decolonizing the curriculum in general terms, decolonizing specific areas within higher education (e.g. history, art, politics, etc.). I find articles on understanding the theories and possible practices and praxes around what decolonization can look like.
However, what I do not seem to be able to find is this: how do we undertake decolonization of the teaching of education?
More specifically, reading lists and course content on introductory education courses, such as those on Year 1 education courses at university-level courses within the UK context, often start with content that reaches back to Ancient Greece, Aristotle and so on before jumping ahead to John Dewey and others. In this sense, the curriculum of education is overtly Eurocentric and white in nature.
Is there literature that addresses this particular area? I have read literature by Anibal Quijano, Maria Lugones, Lewis Gordon, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Ramon Grosfoguel and many others... yet I'm still left wondering about this question. How do we undertake a decolonization of the very basis of education itself especially for prospective teacher-educators, those who study master's and doctorates of education who will likely be (re)introduced to Aristotle's philosophy of education (among others) that will not contextualize his role historically?
Evaluation for epistemological and ontological differences between different research methodologies and
Evaluate the strength and weakness of variety of business and management research methods
Such question is raised when we want to know the future development of research paradigms in educational and social research after we endeavor to compare and evaluate them. I have pondered such question for 18 years. I would like to see if you could join me to answer such epistemologica and ontological l question.....Recently, I have found a feasible method called social cartography. .....
- In my opinion, the location of knowledge in the head or in the brain is a postulate, that is to postulate means "to suggest or accept that to theory or idea is true as a starting point for reasoning or discussion" (Collins). But Basis for Research. To postulate is "to assume to be very or exist; Take for Granted ”(Collins). And I would add to take for granted without any proof, and in any case not demonstrable .
La plupart des théories de l'apprentissage et de l'enseignement sont basées sur le postulat que la connaissance est dans la tête ou le cerveau. Et si ce n'était pas le cas?
À mon avis, l'emplacement des connaissances dans la tête ou dans le cerveau est un postulat. Un postulat est un « Principe non démontré que l'on accepte et que l'on formule à la base d'une recherche ou d'une théorie » (CNRTL).
I would be interested in what you see as the advantages and disadvantages of mixed-methods research in the social sciences. Do you do research with a mixture or combination of e.g. qualitative and quantitative research? Do you combine different quantitative or qualitative methods?
What challenges do you face (e.g., sampling, implementation, scope) and where do you see the limitations of the combination?
Philosophers of science typically recognize two kinds of values in scientific practice: (1) epistemic (or theoretical, or cognitive) virtues, like accuracy, testability, empirical support, etc, and (2) ethical (or social, or regulative) norms, like justice, egalitarianism, openness, etc. Of course, the strict separation of these categories is open to disagreement.
Are there values or norms (of either kind) that are unique to mathematics? Rigour (or provability) is one possibility; computability is another. Can you think of others? Do values play the same kind of role in math as in the natural sciences?
I am currently trying to determine which questions in Schommers epistemological beliefs questionnaire belong to each of the 5 dimensions: simple knowledge, certain knowledge, omniscient authority, inate ability and quick learning
Does anybody know of a study that lists these as I can only see 2 examples for each in the original study and subsequent others
Some notes of the subject "Philosophical and Sociological Perspectives of Contemporary Education".
The fundamental transformation from "state knowledge" to "process knowledge" leads to rethinking in novel terms the question of the relations between epistemology and the psychological formation of notions and operations.
Piaget's contributions as a pioneer of the
Genetic Epistemology. Science is seen as a process.
In the transformation of "state knowledge" towards "process knowledge", I understand that it would not only be a question of rethinking what concerns the relations between epistemology and the psychological formation of notions and operations, but also, it would be possible to seek the link of the validity of knowledge with the process carried out for its construction.
It is a change towards a higher level of knowledge or in a certain way superior, the result of the adaptation of thought, the interaction of the subject with the environment. This is not a process that remains static, since as new elements are incorporated it transforms and evolves.
It is similar what happens with children during their development, which experience constant changes.
Can anyone help with some points of confusion around the fine line that is post-structuralism and social constructionism? I am trying to settle on a theoretical position relating to constructionist epistemological perspectives of voice hearer experiences without going off on a subjectivist ontological tangent. According to MIcheal Crotty subjectivism and constructionism are distinct in thier ontological explanations of reality but does this neccessarily have to lead to distinct methodological approaches? I am interest in exploring the social discourses surrounding lived experiences of mental illness so it seems logical to settle on discursive psychology or critical discourse as it considers the social context of such experiences. According to the mentioned author however, I could be confusing my ontologies ? Am I overthinking this?
Thoughts greatly appreciated!
I am carrying out a PhD interviewing people who have experienced childhood emotional abuse, I am focussing on how they have navigated a meaningful life into adulthood, how they have coped and how it has affected them in adult life, I have interviewed 16 people using narrative interviews where they have told their life story, I am planning to go back and interview them again using semi structured interviews so I can focus on particular aspects of their narrative. I felt swayed towards IPA and also a phenomenologically informed narrative analysis. I am really keen to get peoples opinions and perspectives on this? Help.....
The thesis comprise of three papers:
1. Paper 1 survey data
2. Paper 2 semi structured interviews
3. Paper 3 semi structured interviews
Heidegger said that philosophy is thinking. What else is philosophy? What is the ultimate aim of philosophy? Truth? Certainty? …
Heidegger said that science is knowledge. What else is science? What is the ultimate aim of science? Knowledge? Truth? Certainty? …
The second law of thermodynamics violates the epistemology of "internal causes determine external manifestations".
From the picture (book content), the second law of thermodynamics deduces: "the efficiency of Carnot heat engine has nothing to do with the thermophysical properties of working medium". This is absurd, like "human looks have nothing to do with genes"
"Carnot heat engine efficiency and human appearance" belong to external appearance, while "working medium thermophysical properties and genes" are internal causes. Internal causes determine external appearance.
Thermologists over consume "anti perpetual motion machine" and "irreversible". The second law of thermodynamics violates the rigor of science.
How are "levels" of thought or processing validly seen as hierarchical? This turns out to be a very basic and important question, BECAUSE most often behavior Researcher(s) decide what is at one "level" and what is involved with another "level" and a [supposed] relationship is seen that is thought to be hierarchical (one level using the previous ones (which is fine and good), <- BUT all these "levels" are also seen subjectively). This is a damned poor way of classifying, if [supposedly] for science purposes: it is quite arbitrary and subjective (and task dependent). WHAT'S THE ANSWER?
For those who understand Piaget, the better Answer for what are hierarchical "levels" is: there is a hierarchy developing/unfolding/emerging where qualitative (big differences) in processing occur AND .... This also clearly indicates the Subject 'sees' differently .... The only strictly empirical way to account for all this is that a new "level" involves seeing more or different things or significantly seeing certain things ANEW (in a different way); all those possibilities, in Ethogram Theory, are explained by perceptual shifts (at the beginnings or inceptions of a new level). AND: This also more than strongly indicates that at each new level MORE types of objects/actions are involved.
THUS, for there to be a true empirical hierarchy, SOMETHING (_OR_ type of thing) NOT PRESENT BEFORE IS ADDED (in an objectively verifiable way).
Those who "define" hierarchies without this requirement have lost touch with empirical grounding and have lost touch with science itself. (In Psychology science (like with other real sciences): The SUBJECT, specifically BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, define ALL !; the Researcher(s) merely using his/their own imaginative thought/"analysis" DEFINES NOTHING. Try to remember that the organism, in all aspects of its behaving (including behavior (behavior patterns themselves, per se)) IS ORGANISMIC; if this does not "show", then you are off track and almost certainly in a way that will NOT SELF-CORRECT (as good science does).)
All the above is very much related to questions of concepts being concrete or "abstract" (INTEGRAL to the issue , in fact); AND, not understanding true ontogeny (cognitive development in childhood) leaves "levels of abstraction" in confusion (a pseudo-mystery, seen generously as simply [supposedly] a mystery .)
I would like to know the difference between Ontology and Epistemological bases of research and the weaknesses and advantages. and how to use these for collecting data.
The original meaning of the word "theory" comes close to "view", or even "world view". As such it has already been used by the ancient Greek philosophers, e.g. Aristoteles or Plato. Over the centuries, its meaning has become more and more precise, culminating in a well-defined logical notion of the correspondence between a part of the (outer) real world and the (inner) symbolic world we use to think about or describe it.
In more popular parlance, Wikipedia summarizes it in the statement: "A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon or the results of such thinking." *) Of course, what is meant with "phenomenon" (also an ancient Greek word) is typically left unspecified: it may be a very specific class of objects or events, or it may be something as big as our universe (as in "cosmological theory").
Over the years, I have observed a gradual inflation of the technical term "theory" as defined and used in scientific methodology. The (dualistic) notion of a correspondence between the real world on the one hand and the media we use to reflect about the latter (thought, language, ...) on the other hand seems to have been lost during the rise of empirical research with its strong emphasis on "phenomena" instead of "thoughts".
The result is that the technical term "theory" appears to have also lost its well-defined meaning of a bridge between our outer world "as we observe it" and our inner world "as we reason about it". For instance:
- In a recent paper (2021), the author (a well-known expert in a subfield of social science) promises to offer a theory (sic!) of a particular "phenomenon" in his subfield. As I am also much interested in the kind of phenomena he is doing research about, I of course hoped to find - at least - a worked-out theoretical model of those phenomena.
- Far out! Besides a simple flow-chart of (some of) the processes involved, what he presented was a large collection of more or less confirmed "empirical facts" together with simple "interpretations" (mostly re-wordings) and pointers to possible or plausible relationships.
- I didn't find any sign of the hallmarks of a good theory: a worked-out theoretical model of those phenomena, on the basis of which I (or someone else) could reason about those phenomena, look for inconsistencies between assumptions and facts, derive crucial hypothesis to be tested, etc.: !
My questions to you:
- What are your experiences with this type of inflated use of the word "theory" in scientific research?
- Do you believe that there is a difference in this respect between social sciences and natural sciences?
- How can we bring the "empirical approach" and the "theoretical approach" together, again?
I am doing a project for the final module of my degree with the OU, and looking at the relationship between epistemological beliefs and peoples attitudes towards constructivist online learning environments. I have managed to locate a sample epistemological beliefs questionnaire but struggling to find the full list of questions on the CLES. Could anybody point me in the right direction please? Thanks
I'm working on my research proposal about Epistemological belief and I need help in finding an instrument that could asses students' epistemological belief specifically in physics. Your help will be greatly appreciated
Educational discourse leads to a defined career path. However, educational revolutions have ensured that we move and transition from conventional militaristic ways of teaching to self-education and flexible expandable ways of learning and teaching. An epistemological crisis arises when there is a realization and a pressing need of more knowledge systems to blossom and take shape. Usually such knowledge systems have existed longer than the knowledge systems we are already used to in our institutions. Epistemology in its simplest form is knowledge production. The creation of knowledge on the basis of what exists, what is known and what is knowable. When learning, knowledge and what is allowed to exist is based on the power associated with that knowledge. From its creators such as the first people to come up with those concepts, the models, the illustrations and demonstrations. The knowledge systems in conventional environments such as higher learning institutions usually does not take into account how such knowledges can be diffused in indegenous communities. Indegenous knowledge systems have sought to be discovered for exploration, recognition and for the mere fact of one not defaulting to ignorance on the basis that knowledge systems are hierarchically matched as superior against each other. On the basis that there exists no objective truth, epistemology has seized to be systematic, categorised, typologised, patternised, or sequentialized, but rather has spread out into fragments, and some knowledge systems have emanated from areas and places not yet explored, they need to be afforded the same attention and effort if they are to sprout into fruition. However, we need to distinguish if epistemology is career oriented, power oriented or simply knowledge oriented.
The importance of the digital has given rise to an interdisciplinary research stream, called Internet Studies (Dutton, 2013). How to question the impact of digital technologies on research methods and epistemologies?
Will Internet Studies build a new epistemology ?
Are the foundations of social science epistemology completely changed or adapted to the "internet object"?
What literature would you recommend?
What are the modes of construction of scientific knowledge in the field of organisational communication on the Web ?
What are the approaches and methods used?
What were the evolutions potentially induced by new digital objects like AI ?
I'm looking for information about the development of teacher belief scales concerning teachers own positions regarding the ontology and epistemology of science teaching in secondary school.
Attached is an example of such a questionnaire, but several variations exist (sorry, I only have dutch-language versions)
My question is regarding the structure of the questionnaire, and the relevance of the questions.
I was asked to fill in a version in which, contrary to the attached example, all the questions were mixed. As you can see, in the example the questions are sorted according to whether they concerned teaching of science directly or rather beliefs about the practice of scientists and their relation to the outside world.
Concerning the relevance of the proposed statements about the scientific practice today, I'm wondering about the philosophical references taken while developing these statements, and their prevalence in teacher's or scientist's beliefs. Is the ontology founded in philosophical realism truly a determining factor in the concrete practice and policy of scientists today?
Thanks for elaborating!
I have created a mind map of a literature review on How Ontology, Epistemology And Axiology Relate To Develop New Knowledge Through Research Methodology And Research Design.
The summary is at :
I want critical comments on my thoughts.
The outline of the finding is as follows and you can follow the above link for a more clear image.
Please refer following links of ideas and make critics;
· I found that any research needs to add new knowledge
· That knowledge is resulted from answering a question/s or/and finding a solution/s
· Each problem or solution has its ontology, epistemology, and axiology
· The ontology, epistemology and axiology collectively form a research philosophy while those influence developing research questions or hypotheses or a mix of both regarding the problem or solution.
· As the research philosophy and questions/hypothesis origin from the same sources to both should be conceptually related to each other.
· Then research design is formulated to answer those research questions or hypotheses or a mix of both
· same time the research methodology is underpinning the particular research’s ontology, epistemology, axiology and philosophy continues
· Then research design and research methodology both make the selection of approach in theory development. As well, research design and research methodology make and formulate the rest of the steps in the research.
· After that, the steps are clear. However, the selections of methodological choices, strategies, data collection techniques and analysis techniques are interrelated decisions.
· Finally, all these activities resulted in new knowledge
You may refer to references about critical pragmatics and critical discourse analysis to help you answer the question.
When you set up an experiment, with "defined" "stimuli", these are the stimuli in YOUR imagination and/or YOUR model.
BUT: very often it is a matter of representation (from long-term memory) of the circumstance(s)/setting(s), AND the stimuli can only be understood in THAT context -- the context of the content of developed representation of such circumstances/settings (think, for example, of problem-solving). The Subject, in most significant settings, has her/his representation of such circumstances/situations/settings. THAT actually more than helps to properly define the stimuli , for such is often the MAIN THING for defining (recall that it is the Subject (surrounding behavior patterns) very often _THAT_ MUST, in science, be what allows any empirical or true definition of stimuli).
All this is outlined by, and fully consistent with, Ethogram Theory (see my Profile and, from there, read A LOT-- I do provide guidance on readings order). The Theory itself is internally , and likely externally, consistent and it is strictly empirical (in the grounding/foundation of ALL concepts -- i.e. ALL clearly linked to directly observable overt behavior PATTERNS); and thus, given all those characteristics, there are hypotheses that are clearly verifiable/falsifiable .
Is there reason to believe that data, available or possible, from eye tracking is far greater than what is utilized? YES ! :
Computer scientists tell us that ANY similar or exact patterning of visual perception or attention, with _ANY_ overt manifestations, can be captured. Unquestionably much develops from input through the eyes (the MAJOR example: ontogeny); plus, behavior IS PATTERNED (as would be true for any significant biologically-based functioning (and ALL behavior is)). AND, ALL such could/can be found/identified using eye tracking and computer assisted analysis. ANY/ALL. Thus, it would be useful for psychology to capture any/all such. (It would be more constructive to start with analysis including most-all subtle behavior patterns; that avoids at least most unfounded a priori assumptions (actually: presumptions).)
Unlike modern assumptions, little is likely just random; and YET ALSO, for-sure, little is just statistical. (Nature doesn't play dice.)
True, this is self-serving (for me, for my definitely empirical theory) BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE.
Plato, while criticizing his opponents, classically defined their concept of knowledge as "true justified belief". The cognitive belief is the belief in a proposition. Is it different from the feeling of knowing the proposition?
Although my tendency is to say "no", some of my philosophy colleagues argue that cognitive beliefs are not emotional, while feelings are. It seems that the divergence is related to the controversy between Emotivists and Rationalists...
There are some alternatives:
a) To separate cognition and feeling; if knowledge is influenced by emotional feelings, it is not well justified (justification has to be purely rational)
b) To claim that cognition and feeling cooperate in the construction of knowledge; feelings can motivate us to find rational justification
c) To reduce cognitive beliefs to the "feeling of knowing". As far as there is no feeling-independent procedure to justify a proposition or to demonstrate truth, all we have to support our decisions is the feeling of knowing
i'm a novice researcher and i m having a problem analyzing an article
i do understand the methodology used and results but i can't figure out the epistemological position or the reasoning adopted
if someone familiar with the article could help me
the link to the article :
thank u in advance
I am starting a research effort about epistemological viewpoints present in a certain corpus of doctoral dissertations, most of them on the field of education. The corpus is related to the Finnish system of Universities of Applied Sciences (or polytechnics, in Finnish "ammattikorkeakoulu").
A significant part of this corpus is based on qualitative research implemented by using combinations of phenomenography and content analysis approaches. Thus my goal is to discuss the possibilities of synthesis especially for this part of my data. Other methodological / theoretical sets of examples will probably appear.
The process will contain the following tentative steps, although it will be iterative in nature:
1) building a systematic bibliography, focused on methodologies, frames of references and the applications as well as limitations of the results
2) reviews of epistemological approaches, frameworks and issues present, summaries of related (pedagogical) applications reported
3) metasyntheses related to used theoretical and methodological frameworks (like phenomenography and content analysis mentioned above)
4) conclusions, experiences and recommendations.
The management of the process and maintaining the quality probably will raise questions and cause problems. The corpus contains around 150 monographs. In Finland the doctoral dissertations are usually published in universities' monograph series, although can be based on papers published in refereed journals. Have you done research relevant to this kind of effort? Would you like to share your experiences? I have of course done and will be doing literature reviews for my proposal, so I am not just asking for references, although they are also welcome.
Since epistemology is concerned with what is knowledge and how knowledge is acquired. My question is, how does epistemology guide research? For example, if I want to do a mixed-method combine qualitative and quantitative research, how does epistemology guide the research?
Thank you for your answers.
I am new to use these three methods in my thesis. My assignment is based on how i can use the three-dimensional model (material realities, subjective-experiential realities, and social-constructional realities). I am finding this hard if anyone can help me and give me some examples that how i can use this three model in my thesis topic to analyze it. I will be looking for replies. I also attached the pdf file of the three-dimensional methods of ontology.
My research has positivist epistemological approach since I, assumed that only “facts” derived from the scientific method can make legitimate knowledge claims.However, I am not if my axiological approach is positivist. The inspiration for my study derived from my hobby. Nevertheless, positivist axiology has to be neutral or in other words, value-free. My personal value should not shape how we do research. If it does, then it is not positivist axiology. Considering this issue:
Is it possible to obtain several philosophical theories in research ? To put it simply, could I have positivist epistemological approach and realist/interpretivist/... axiological approach together?
I am hoping for some guidance and additional reading material that will assist me in determining ontological and epistemological stance when not explicitly detailed within the research.
Here is an example paper I'm working with:
Would I be correct in assuming that this is an example of thematic analysis employing a critical realist ontology and a constructionist epistemology? I'm new to philosophy and qualitative research is not my strong point so I'm worried that I'm way off base here.
Any further guidance is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I have three papers for a review and I would like to seek some guidance on the epistemological positions.
I believe the first two are of a realist ontology with a positivism epidemiology however the third paper is a mixed methods paper and at this point I find it hard to distinguish am I right in assuming this paper is critical realism with an interpritivism epistemology .
The other two papers are based on quantitative research with hypothesise and findings looking to prove these hypothesise based on literature. The mixed methods is below
Can somebody shed some clarity on how a contextual approach to qualitative research translates into a specific paradigm, epistemology, ontology and axiology in psychology?
I understand that it is a philosophical approach but there seem to be different views about which paradigm etc. it would be part of. Thanks.
I am interested in using critical realism as my (meta- )theoretical standpoint/paradigm in my MD in medical education. This has stemmed from my reading of Bhaskar and Archer. I understand critical realism is generally accepted to have a realist ontology and relativist epistemology. However when I read many medical education papers/texts (Illing, Braun & Clark, Cleland) they describe critical realism as the ONTOLOGY associated with post positivism and that it lies between realism and relativism.
So how can critical realism be both a metatheoretical/philosophical position AND a ontology? Or have I missed the point?
Interviews are of three types: structured, semi-structured, unstructured. But where does the interview questions come from?
1- From the heart of literature
2- From an ontological and epistemological point of view
Recommended the use of paradigm in all Grounded Theory books,
Do You agree with proposal?
I'm conducting research to understand the change in service ecosystem at different levels of aggregation. At first, I wanted to take an interpretivism ontological lens with a constructivist epistemological position.
Then when I read about critical realism, I found that it is a better lens to look at a change in service ecosystems.
However, I have a question, what is the epistemological position of a critical realist? I know it gets a bit complicated in epistemology since critical realist criticise epistemological stance as the nature between knowledge/reality in relation to the researcher cannot be pinpointed.
However, for my proposal, I don't want to argue my critical realist position to the nitty-gritty and dig into too many arguments. I want to keep it simple.
Is this possible?
When developing new social science theories, we tend to rely on causal explanations so as to make sense of the reality around us. One can argue that people are natural-born storytellers and therefore we place so much emphasis on causal inferences. My question is whether you can provide any examples of social sciences theories that break this 'linearity bias'? What sort of alternatives to causal/linear/sequential explanations are available to scientists who wish to devise novel social science theories?
In advance thank you to answers.
What is the current state of Political Theory today?
Most of the contemporary literature are arguing that after its 'dead' during the '30, '40 and '50's with Logical Positivism, PT was evoked by Berlin and Rawls.
However, are there any predominant epistemological approaches that are trying to define and/or shape political theory as logical positivism back in the '50's?
Obserwuje zjawisko x i opisuje je jako “x” to czy opisuje je adekwatnie zależy od mojej zdolności inferencji i bogactwa językowego, im bogatszy mam język tym lepiej mogę opisać zjawisko ‘x’ lecz nie chodzi nam o kwiecistość języka a adekwację. aby “x” = x, czyli poznać świat, opisać zjawisko czyli podać tezę. Widzę ze p to “p” a gdy p nie równa się “p” czyli źle rozpoznaje zjawisko to wpadam w iluzję. Jak zatem poznać zjawisko. Zjawiska poznajemy poprzez zmysły i opisujemy je przez rozum który może je opisać matematycznie, logicznie i językowo. Matematycznie opisują świat fizycy, logicznie np. ontologicznie filozofowie, językowo wszyscy wcześniejsi i pisarze. Epistemolog zastanawia się jak poznać świat Ci powyżsi korzystając z rad epistemologa dokonują jego, świata, opisu. Aby poznać świat mogę dokonać: obserwacji wzrokiem, dotykiem, smakiem, węchem, słuchem, synidezą, mogę wyczuć sens świata jego sfery ontycznej, lecz lepiej różnicować niż syntetyzować robiąc synidezę czy wyczuwając sens świata, sens w rozumieniu Twardowskiego z jego pism o psychice czyli wyczuwając introcepcję bytu. Reasumując, matematyk, logik, naukowiec, pisarz uzbrojeni w narzędzia dane im przez epistemologa dokonują wiwisakcji świata i opisują rzeczy oczywiste, czyli mówią nam prawdę, choć w literaturze jest miejsce na fantazję i tak zakończyłbym spór z postmodernizmem, nie wszystko jest literaturą choć jest sztuką piśmienniczą bo literat może fantazjować a reszta nie ma do tego prawa.
It seems to me that the power of the mechanistic account of explanation (Craver; Bechtel; Glennan) is to take apart individual components and see how they contribute to a given behaviour. In my opinion, the significant focus still is on the activities of individual components. The concept of the mechanistic organization should make mechanical models more holistic. However, in my opinion, the mechanistic organization merely focus on the spatial (i.e. proximity and distance) and temporal (i.e. different times of activation) co-ordination of mechanistic components. If this is the case, I do not see why the mechanistic organization should imply that mechanisms, for example, in neuroscience, are holistic. The mechanistic organization does not include a concept such as "way of working" (Bergeron, 2007) which points out the comprehensive way of cooperating of a set of components abstracting away from the activity of individual components. For instance, Burnston (2019) suggest that for studying how a set of brain regions (i.e. a brain network) underlies a specific cognitive function, we may look at the "brain frequency" (alpha: 8-13 Hz; beta, 18-25; theta: 3.5-7 Hz; delta: 0.5-3.5 Hz, and gamma: 30-70 Hz) of the whole network. That is holistic! Is it my impression or is there no an account of the mechanistic organization (in neo-mechanical philosophy) that takes into consideration "ways of working" together of every mechanistic component both intra-level and inter-level?
Please, let me know if you think I am wrong, and where may I read a substantially holistic account of the mechanistic organization.
Pure sciences have been inspiring the social sciences both epistemologically and methodologically for long periods.
Could the opposite happen? Why?
Examples and applications will enrich the discussion.
This question does not relate to philosophical romanticism applied to science that had some currency in the 1800s. Roughly it seems that scientific romanticism differed from enlightenment by inserting humanity into nature and seeking union via human consciousness and problem solving.
The romantic aspect of physics I allude to shares some features of the medieval tale relating to chivalry, such as Don Quixote and qualities of adventure into unknown parts remote from settled life, such as the adventures of Richard Burton, who translated the Arabian Nights.
The mystery is: how has nature contrived these things we observe?
The remoteness is that the answers may require extrapolation in size, microscopic or cosmological, or in length of time, short or long, or in eons past or yet to arrive, remote from human experience, or principles that defy and challenge human perception, such as universal gravitation, or the nature of time, curvature of space, or quantum particles.
The adventure involves all the steps to solve the problem.
It seems to me that theoretical physics is a romantic quest. If the physicist arrives at a partial or provisional understanding of some mystery, then that is a great romance.
The whole question looks like that: Discuss the relation between epistemological starting points and theory on one side and method on the other, concerning two methods (or two methodological approaches within a larger methods field). How does the relation differ between the two methods (and what is similar)? Is a certain theory and/or epistemological starting point required for a certain method? If so which one(s), if not are there still some limitations regarding theory/epistemology depending on the method?
The research which i am doing consists of multiple regression and case studies research.
I would like to know whether what i am doing is a mixed methods. Also, what are its ontological and epistemological assumptions?
For methodology chapter, is it right to assume that 2 research paradigms are to be made for the methods used.
Hi, I am doing a content analysis of quantitative and qualitative information from annual financial reports. The results will be quantified and statistically analysed. Later, I am doing interviews and thematic analysis of interviews. What ontology ad epistemology does it belong to? The research design is mixed methods research. My area of research is accounting and finance.
I define the research philosophy for my research phenomenon that is the impact of the disruptive innovation in the hotel industry as epistemology. But, I'm not sure how to justify the rationale behind the approach to philosophy.
The research paradigm is pragmatic as I am studying travellers' behaviour and the market experts' conviction on the existing phenomenon using a mixed-methods approach.
so will it be called subjective? That's what I have understood so far.
Any advice or suggestions are welcome.
Much of this is quoted from elsewhere, but I think deserves its own thread:
Kuhn, who I have always seen as having a only a partial (that is: just a "some-parts" understanding) of a paradigm, still seems at least in the direction of being correct in some noteworthy ways. According to Kuhn : An immature science is preparadigmatic -- that is, it is still in its natural history phase of competing schools. Slowly, a science matures and becomes paradigmatic. (End of short summary of some of his views.) [ It will be clear I do not fully agree with these views, in particular: the " 'natural' history" part. ]
I would say that preparadigmatic is not yet science at all and characterized by flailing and floundering UNTIL a paradigm is found (and RATHER: actually, this should be done NOW and with any necessary efforts: FORMULATED). Preparadigmatic is nothing good, clear or even "natural"; it is a state of insufficiency, failing to provide for making for clear sustained integrated progress (and even, as indicated, I would say this situation is: unnecessary -- see my delineation of the characteristics of a paradigm * to see why this situation in Psychology is unnecessary and INEXCUSABLE, because clearly you MUST be doing paradigm definition the best you can, clearly and respectably). _AND_ we are not talking about progress in one vein (sub-"area"), but some interpretable, agreeable findings for the whole field -- a necessary condition of HAVING ANY sort of general SCIENCE AT ALL; obviously Psychology does not have that and should not be considered a science just because people in that field want to say that and supposedly aspire in that way [ ("aspire" somehow -- usually essentially mythologically, irrationally, and just "hoping beyond hope" (as people say)) ] In short: that state of preparadigmatic should not be tolerated; major efforts should be clearly going on to improve from this state immediately ("if not sooner", as they say -- i.e. this SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SOONER).
Since I think I DO KNOW at least many of the characteristics of a paradigm (presented elsewhere, for one: in the description of the "... Ethogram Theory" Project *) AND since mine is the only paradigm being "offered up", Psychology people should damn well take full note of that and fully read and come to a reasonable understanding of my perspective and approach -- all that leading to clear, testable hypotheses that, IF SHOWN CORRECT, would be of general applicability and importance and very reliable (in the formal sense) and , thus (as I say): agreeable. IN short, I OFFER THE ONLY FULL-FLEDGED GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY PARADIGM and if someone is in the Psychology field and really cares about science, they must take note (and fully assess it) (no reason for any exception): Minimally, all must "see" AND READ:
Barring any "competition", my paradigm should be studied and fully understood -- NO REASONABLE SCIENCE CHOICE ABOUT IT. It stands alone in Psychology, as a proposal for a NECESSARY "ingredient" for SCIENCE for Psychology.
* FOOTNOTE (this footnote is referenced-to twice in the essay above): The characteristics of a paradigm are presented the Project referred to: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY (in particular, in its description)
Empirical science is on the rise and its methods are adopted to an increasing number of domains from psychology to education to economics. However, this method and epistemology is alien to commonsensual ontology (non-Aristotelian) and is often described as non-rational.
Although commonsense ontology is not widely accepted as a well-defined idea, it is a general agreement that this way of making conclusions is based on the Aristotelian categories of quantity and relation, the later meaning "talking about one thing with respect to another".
How does this affect their validity and scope ? What are the real drawbacks to this way of making conclusions ?
Recently, the Aymara intellectual Silvia Rivera Cusicanquí (Bolivia), has pointed out that "the decolonial is a fashion, the postcolonial a desire and the anti-colonial a struggle." Through this, she posits that in the face of the exhausted epistemological horizon of Eurocentric modernity there is a renewed interest in the knowledge that emerges in the context of the struggles for decolonization, however, there is no real political commitment on the part of scientists. The author points out: "the decolonial is a very recent fashion that, in some way, usufructs and reinterprets those processes of struggle, but I think it depoliticizes them, since the decolonial is a state or a situation but it is not an activity, it does not imply an agency, nor a conscious participation. I put the anti-colonial struggle into practice in fact, in some way, delegitimizing all forms of objectification and ornamental use of what is indigenous by the State. All of these are processes of symbolic colonization. "
I am interested in hearing and reading critical opinions about the decolonial turn in academic fashion. My question arises from some observations:
a) Epistemological violence in the social sciences that is claimed to be decolonial continues to be exercised from the Eurocentric "epistemological ratio". Where Latin America becomes a simple field of study. And where those of us who reflect from within the struggles for decolonization are erased from the map of knowledge production, since our texts are not referenced or academic extractivism is simply generated stealing local knowledge, exercising new forms of "indigenous folklorization".
b) The main references of decolonial thought are located in universities in hegemonic countries. The intellectual activists of Latin America who have a conscious ethic and struggle with social movements are excluded from the circuits of intellectual debate.
c) An important fracture of decolonial studies occurs in the defense of the Nation State and the progressive left governments of Latin America, such as Evo Morales and Maduro, and a rejection of radical left or indigenous proposals that are raised from anti-state perspectives , libertarian and autonomous.
d) The depoliticization and lack of ethics of many researchers who claim to be decolonial, who through practices of academic extractivism seek to scrutinize indigenous knowledge, have been financed with multi-million dollar research projects, financed by companies and state research corporations (Por example mitzubichi corporation), and whose impacts have contributed nothing to the struggles of those who dispute the territory.
We have been discussing a critical review of new materialism by Susanne Lettow: Turning the turn: New materialism, historical materialism and critical theory. Thesis 11 (2016), 1-16. We have also discussed the introduction (by the editors) to the volume "Material Feminisms" ed. Susan Alaimo and Susan Hekman, Indian UP, 2008.
The questions that have come out of this discussion are the following:
1. Do the authors just add a "big we" to previously available to "matter" - understood at best as a boundary object and at worst as a wobbly notion? Is it possible to make the accounts discussed her more concise?
2. Do they open up new conversations - and which ones?
3. Which new types of knowledge are produced?
4. If the apparent lack of conciseness is due to patriarchial exclusions of certain types of thinking that feminism, however, needs, what does feminist episteme / epistemology mean?
5. If new materialism provides a platform for theories that might be different or even (in terms of their basis philosophical presuppositions) incompatible, can feminist inquiry use this platform for common goals / research projects?
6. How could the discussion go on? (How) do we tackle traditional dichotomies like the nature/culture devide?
7. Does feminist materialism allow to (re)position the philosophical backbone of sciences/technologies in a specific historical/regional context?
The first thing most beginning PhD students learn, irrespective of discipline, is to understand different research types and to situate their own research projects in terms of ontology, epistemology, methodology, and (sometimes) axiology. Why and how has the research community come to decide that exactly these categories are the ones we should use? Some researchers have started to propose categories such as "praxeology". What other types of categories could we use?
Establishing one's philosophy is a key starting point in planning to conduct research, especially in education and humanities. For that purpose, researchers are required to choose one of the two answers to ontological, epistemological and axiological questions. Do all researchers do these?
Other philosophical foundations (ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology) are complementary to the idea in this project. What aspects would help it attain the best results? How to make it multi-confessional, and appealing to humanity as a whole? It is not the aim to appeal just to Muslims as per the term Islamic like the Islamic Finance and Banking industry does not appeal to Muslims. Hence, what may make the industry more efficient and how could other conventional, mainstream or other alternative industries help this project or benefit from it in a way to make economic thought, writing and practice more genuine and beneficial to all humanity?
Hi! I'm looking for theories, methods and approaches to study the history/evolution/conception of a given concept/term/label/topic within a given scientific discipline, mainly through the (textual) analysis of the discipline's (pivotal) writings. I'm particularly interested in approaches that would draw from ontology, terminology, conceptual analysis, conceptual history, historiography, etc., but I don't really know where to start. I'm especially interested in what the discipline's most influential writers have to say about a specific object, however they might have labelled it, and how the discipline's various theories and approaches regard that object. The approach would have to work both semasiologically (from a label to its concepts) and onomasiologically (from a concept to its labels), as there is no necessary relation between a given label and a given concept. Any ideas? Thank you very much!
Sometimes, perhaps, the largest impediment to solving a problem, in general and in physics, is the framing of the question in the context of widely accepted implicit, or unstated or assumed concepts.
If, unaware and unknowledgeable — ignorant – of those learned assumptions, one blunders into the problem, can that be an advantage, unencumbered by what the learned think they know? The more unquestioned those assumptions are, the harder it is to tackle the unsolved problem is?
Or does the inquiry of the ignorant lead to merely ignorance elaborated?
Are there historical examples?
Epistemology is concerned with justifcation for knowledge claims. Why is 2+2=4 true, is my ring true gold (cf Heidegger). Blockchain validtes the genuineness of virtual currencies, it can also validate ownership, and there is even discussion of Blockchain and identity. Has anyone explored the philosophical implications of Blockchain??
Wikipedia describes Physics, lit. 'knowledge of nature' , as the natural science that studies matter, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force
But isn’t this definition a redundancy? Any visible object is made of matter and its motion is a consequence of energy applied. We might as well say, study of stuff that happens. But then, what does study entail?
Fundamentally, ‘physics’ is a category word, and category words have inherent problems. How broad or inclusive is the category word, and is the ordinary use of the category word too restrictive?
Is biophysics a subcategory of biology? Is econophysics a subcategory of economics? If, for example, biophysics combines elements of physics and biology, does one predominate as categorization? If, as in biophysics and econophysics and astrophysics there are overlapping disciplines, does the category word ‘physics’ gives us insight about what physics studies or obscure what physics studies?
Is defining what physics does more a problem of semantics (ascribing meaning to a category word) than of science?
Might another way of looking at it be this? Physics generally involves the detection of patterns common to different patterns in phenomena, including those natural, emergent, and engineered; if possible detecting fundamental principles and laws that model them, and when possible using mathematical notation to describe those principles and laws; if possible devising and implementing experiments to test whether hypothesized or observed patterns provide evidence for or give clues to fundamental principles and laws.
Maybe physics more generally just involves problem solving and the collection of inferences about things that happen.
Saturation is the approach to collecting qualitative data until you reach a point where you are not getting any new details. It seems this tool would work across most if not all epistemological perspectives. What are your thoughts?
Rationality is itself an elusive term. There are debates on the definition and criteria of rationality. The primary assumption of the naturalized and non-naturalized rationality on normative conditions has been a puzzling issue.
Neither Naturalist nor non-naturalist able to provide universally recognized criterion like laws of physics.
In physics, we have a number of "fundamental" variables: force, mass, velocity, acceleration, time, position, electric field, spin, charge, etc
How do we know that we have in fact got the most compact set of variables? If we were to examine the physics textbooks of an intelligent alien civilization, could it be they have cleverly set up their system of variables so that they don't need (say) "mass"? Maybe mass is accounted by everything else and is hence redundant? Maybe the aliens have factored mass out of their physics and it is not needed?
Bottom line question: how do we know that each of the physical variables we commonly use are fundamental and not, in fact, redundant?
Has anyone tried to formally prove we have a non-redundant compact set?
Is this even something that is possible to prove? Is it an unprovable question to start with? How do we set about trying to prove it?
In his work "Letters from the philosophy of empirical sciences" in which Imre Lakatos raises the problem of demarcation in how to distinguish science from non-science, proposes to solve in this way and establish the following demarcation criterion. Namely, science based theses on its research methods, and non-science is based on falsehood. How to distinguish the thesis from falsehood deals with epistemology, methodology and methodology. In short, science deals with the study of nature and states thesis, unscientific or pseudoscience falls into falsehood.
With Climate Change and all, I will tell you what I think is a minimum needed for survival and that is: literally a completely, fully, entirely new outlook on life AND that being FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING and involving all our work-a-day pursuits -- a wholly new way of life (and "full-blown" way of action/work) and a source of wholesomeness and great actions and GOOD:
Every hour/day/week/month/year, etc. you wake up mindful, informed (and get more informed as ever needed to proceed ASAP), dedicated, and completely persistent and consistent in acting for the earth-life-dignity of your CAUSES and related CAUSES. Serious life as pursued will be nothing but your involvement and active-dedication to CAUSES (maintaining rational, workable consistencies, and AS MUCH IN ACTION as possible, to actually achieve or actualize the causes). Satisfaction will have nothing to do with "being easy-going" NOR with typical or traditional ideas (notions) of happiness, nor with any [supposedly] other way of (or toward, or for) "satisfaction" -- "rewards" of life many of you, much of the time, thought likely would come with "freedom" and "general happiness" (as historically thought about) but such will be clearly seen as blatant, flagrant, and shameful irresponsibility of old ways considered not worth even thinking about FOR ANY GOOD PURPOSE or any goal in the world (you will have plenty else to think about and with integrity and dignity AND FOR DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY)(plus, there is inherent irrationality in the old views: one way or others of expecting -- and basically even counting on -- MAGIC). BUT, now, all the old happiness/play/satisfaction/fun in-and-with any other "things" or activities will naturally and rationally and personally come to be seen as that which eliminates true dignity and integrity and any worthwhile (or even real) satisfactions -- now with you having the dignity and integrity of work on AND for your CAUSES. With this new way (for all we see for ourselves and for any decent folk we will associate with), SOON nothing else will will "do"; we will have a new way to real dignity, better understandings, and some true, real, good lasting, progressive satisfaction, and with greater loving kindness and equanimity (as we accept we do what we do and others do as their own best in the same vein). As indicated, the way is to operate (LIVE) IS ONLY in terms of CAUSES and inter-related or necessarily simultaneous or successive CAUSES. Developing and accomplishing (in action as much as possible and necessary) will be ALL for the CAUSES which will be your life -- the "all" of your life that matters or has any implications for yourself or others. And, this is also at least as all other decent human beings doing all major things of working life will know you, and that is how you will know them. This is all simply a commitment to understandings, and engaging in wholesome pursuits (which, AGAIN, will be in terms of CAUSES). The causes will be shared only as well, rationally, and wholesomely pursued through group action BUT may well be otherwise that which is done alone (individually), if that is how things are going to get done.
This is the formula for self-breeding of the species and for any real decency and for the survival of the species itself. I cannot imagine how anything else will be sufficiently adaptive; in fact, anything else breeds ignorance, confusion, chaos and irresponsibility (an easy logical and sound argument to make). (I want to live, I want humans who follow me to live; DO YOU?)
I am studying an application of Competence Based Training by teachers. I want to know how they apply it in classrooms, if they have any Pedagogy Content Knowledge (PCK) deficiency in using such a teaching approach and finally i want to develop learning materials to fill/intervene the identified skills gap
Within the sphere of social science - which explanatory frameworks or models do you apply to situate your work? These are also referred to as conceptual and theoretical frameworks.
I am interested in the following types:
- Epistemology (knowledge orientations)
- Ontology (existence/being)
- Culture (principles/values/modes of social organisation)
- Pedagogy (educational).
Feel free to refer to your own frameworks or scholars who have been central in your research. Please also share "benefits" of these for scholarly argumentation.
Oscar Oliver Eybers